<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (7) TMI 572 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111891</link>
    <description>Earnest money under an apartment buyer&#039;s agreement may be forfeited where the allottee fails to continue instalments, but the contractual terms and surrounding circumstances can justify equitable moderation. The agreement here treated part of the payments as earnest money and allowed forfeiture on non-fulfilment of the allottee&#039;s obligations, while also reserving the company&#039;s power to revise costs on specified heads and providing refund without interest for delay in possession. Given the delay in handing over possession and the substantial additional demand, the forfeiture was not disturbed in full. The forfeiture was upheld only to the extent of 50 per cent, and the balance was directed to be refunded with interest if payment was delayed beyond the stipulated period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148907" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 572 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111891</link>
      <description>Earnest money under an apartment buyer&#039;s agreement may be forfeited where the allottee fails to continue instalments, but the contractual terms and surrounding circumstances can justify equitable moderation. The agreement here treated part of the payments as earnest money and allowed forfeiture on non-fulfilment of the allottee&#039;s obligations, while also reserving the company&#039;s power to revise costs on specified heads and providing refund without interest for delay in possession. Given the delay in handing over possession and the substantial additional demand, the forfeiture was not disturbed in full. The forfeiture was upheld only to the extent of 50 per cent, and the balance was directed to be refunded with interest if payment was delayed beyond the stipulated period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111891</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>